Legal in the US, watching “pixie sex” lands New Zealand man in jail

But "fake" images of children have been debated in US courts and are now illegal.

In Japan, the viewing of hentai, or sexually explicit cartoons, is a mainstream activity. But it's far from accepted in many other countries. In fact, now a New Zealand man has been sentenced to three months in jail for watching cartoons of "elves, pixies, and other fantasy creatures" have sex.

The man's lawyer said the Japanese anime cartoons consisted of creatures that "you knew at a glance weren't human," and said his client's conviction for possessing digitally created pornography represents "the law gone mad."

The characters were "clearly young elves and pixies, which led to concerns the images were linked to child sexual abuse," reported Fairfax NZ News. New Zealand anti-child pornography activists defended the conviction, saying the images could encourage people "to migrate from there to the real thing."

In the US, the legality of "virtual child pornography" which involves created images of children has been debated in courts. Regular child pornography isn't protected by free-speech rules, because the production of the images is itself harmful to children. Distribution and viewing of such images is also illegal, as that activity contributes to the market for a product that harms children.

However, the legality of "virtual" child porn was upheld in a 2002 US Supreme Court ruling, Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition. In response to that ruling, Congress passed a 2003 law called the PROTECT Act, with more specific language about what kind of computer images are banned. If a computer-generated image is "indistinguishable from" child pornography, then it can be prosecuted even if no actual child was involved.

But the "indistinguishable from" language—drawn straight from the Supreme Court's ruling in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition case—means that watching young elves, pixies, and other non-humans get it on will probably remain legal.

I'm all for stopping paedophiles. Permanently. But: "New Zealand anti-child pornography activists defended the conviction, saying the images could encourage people "to migrate from there to the real thing.""

They should stop saying stupid things, it might encourage them to migrate from there to the real thing -

This particular guy had prior convictions. I've read about this in a couple places (and seen some quite lively discussions - potentially NSFW inlines) but no one seems to make much of that. His possession of the material was possibly in violation of an agreement. That agreement may have been worded broadly enough that it didn't matter if the apparent children in the images had pointy ears or not.

Let's just say this is all well and clear of my wheelhouse but I find the level of energy people put in to both sides of the "it's art / it's kiddy porn" debate quite interesting.

This particular guy had prior convictions. I've read about this in a couple places (and seen some quite lively discussions - potentially NSFW inlines) but no one seems to make much of that. His possession of the material was possibly in violation of an agreement. That agreement may have been worded broadly enough that it didn't matter if the apparent children in the images had pointy ears or not.

Let's just say this is all well and clear of my wheelhouse but I find the level of energy people put in to both sides of the "it's art / it's kiddy porn" debate quite interesting.

Despite that, and having read the thread earlier this afternoon , he was convicted for having the images, not for violation of parole. If he violated his parole, great, send him back to jail to serve out the remainder of his sentence. But the fact is that he was convicted of watching hentai, not of violating parole by watching hentai, and all of the slippery slope comments are clearly painting him as a monster for watching it, and by extension anyone else, not for watching it in the context of his prior offenses.

I think the whole world should learn from Japan - you can be total perv and it is OK. Why nobody considers their sex crime rate compared to all the "pervy stuff" (compared to western standards) they are doing/watching, etc. Speechless.

Also, I think it's pretty clear that Thomas Jefferson and James Madison would be horrified by this. I have no doubt that they would have stood tall in the defense of those men whose unique contribution to the richness that is the human tapestry can be fully expressed only by drawing pictures of fantasy humanoids having sex.

I was a reasonably intelligent person before I read this story. Now I'm desperately trying to hold in my brains which seem to have leaked out of my ears. So this fellow is going to spend time in jail for watching things people have drawn.

Things people have drawn. He's going to jail for watching things people have drawn. I did read that correctly, didn't I? He's going to bloody JAIL for watching things people have DRAWN.

I remember reading an article here at Ars some time ago (long ago - probably 10+ years, wish I could remember the headline to find the link) about an individual in the US that was agoraphobic and had been molested/raped/abused as a child. This person was part of an on-line forum of other victims who discussed their past, and tried to help each other make sense of what happened to move on with life. The specific individual I'm speaking of wrote short stories about child molestation and abuse as a form of therapy. And yes, this person was prosecuted for writing said content (though I believe prosecution was eventually dropped). And this was in liberal land, aka California.

The desire to view child porn, real or not, is the problem. It's the concept they're objecting to. Pedophiles are not wired right and will have to struggle with it for their whole lives.

Even if there were mounds and mounds of child porn and it was all legal, that's great, and have at it but personally I'd still keep my Femjoy and Errotica Archives accounts because seeing two bumps on a board and a little cupie doll face isn't sexy to me. Eufrat Mai, Iveta B, or Ariel, now you're talking. I'm lucky.

The religious right thinks you can talk people out of it and counsel them but you can't. Sexuality is deep rooted and you are what you are. Which is fine but kids are off limits.

I think the whole world should learn from Japan - you can be total perv and it is OK. Why nobody considers their sex crime rate compared to all the "pervy stuff" (compared to western standards) they are doing/watching, etc.

Umm... I am a major Japanophile, but it's sadly misogynistic over there. Do you have statistics for your claim about sex crime rates? Because from what I've seen it's endemic. For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women-only ... _car#Japan The only way the reported rate could be low is if women aren't reporting.

It's another case of creating a boogie man for society, to be blunt and honest about what I think about things like this.

Now that homosexuals cannot be used as sexual scapegoats, now that interracials cannot be used as sexual scapegoats, now that heterosexuals outside of marriage cannot be used as sexual scapegoats, they move on to the next sexuality to try to make illegal/illegitimate.Beastiality and pedosexuality are the two current things they are trying to go after. (I personally don't give a crap whether someone wants to have sex with an animal, that is their choice and no one else's)

Yes, some people dislike pedophilia/pedosexuality. Yes, some people say that it is harmful. Though the only LEGITIMATE AND NON-BIASED study, Rand et. al, proved that was the not the case in the slightest for anything but an extremely short term and only when there was negative reaction by society/adults around the child in question.Read the book "Harmful to Minors" for another reason why the anti-child sex hysteria is harming children.

However, personal dislike is not enough to make a sexuality illegal. Real physical harm without the permission of the person in question (emotional harm is too viewpoint in my opinion to be legally sound) is something that you can make illegal.

Now, some people might say that children 'cannot make those decisions because they are too 'immature' or 'inexperienced'. Well, skippy, you have to do something to get experience (you cannot get it solely from a book) and immaturity is a viewpoint-based thing (I personally feel that most children are more mature than we give them credit for).

We need to have a discussion on whether pedosexuallity is being used to direct societies attention away from OTHER things (such as political corruption) or to allow people who are 'so against adults and children having sex together' to actually be taking advantage of children and forcing/drugging them into sex.

As some known anti-pedosexual prosecutors and judges have been exposed for doing on a regular basis.

Also, I think it's pretty clear that Thomas Jefferson and James Madison would be horrified by this. I have no doubt that they would have stood tall in the defense of those men whose unique contribution to the richness that is the human tapestry can be fully expressed only by drawing pictures of fantasy humanoids having sex.

Thomas Jefferson had sex with and children by at least one of his slaves, specifically his dead wife's half-sister (Jefferson's father-in-law was also a slave-owner), so his opinion about what may or may not be pervy is not wanted.

The desire to view child porn, real or not, is the problem. It's the concept they're objecting to. Pedophiles are not wired right and will have to struggle with it for their whole lives.

Even if there were mounds and mounds of child porn and it was all legal, that's great, and have at it but personally I'd still keep my Femjoy and Errotica Archives accounts because seeing two bumps on a board and a little cupie doll face isn't sexy to me. Eufrat Mai, Iveta B, or Ariel, now you're talking. I'm lucky.

The religious right thinks you can talk people out of it and counsel them but you can't. Sexuality is deep rooted and you are what you are. Which is fine but kids are off limits.

Why? In all honesty, why? Numerous medical studies have proven that we are born with fully functional genitalia outside of reproduction. Doesn't that kinda tell you that perhaps, we are supposed to be having sex from birth?

Doesn't the fact that the universe made no 'forcefield' between adult's and children's genitalia kinda link to the thinking that "Hey, nature expected children and adults to be having sexual relationships, so that children could learn what good sexual relationships are"?

Something reeks in my mind about this anti-sexuality bunkus in the world today and especially the anti-child sexuality bunkus in the world today.

It seems to be an attempt for adults to say "WE ARE BETTER THAN CHILDREN, WE DESERVE THIS MORE!" and keep children as lesser beings than adults.